Religion shouldn't be about science

I want to pick on fellow NJ VOICES blogger George Berkin, if I may, because his argument concerning Intelligent Design shadows a discussion I've been having with my brother for some time. His argument, I believe, misses on a number of points, some important, some less so. First and foremost is the use of Inherit the Wind, and the Scopes trial upon which it is based, as an example of the persecutors-now-persecuted argument.

Inherit the Wind uses excerpts from the Scopes trial, along with some major poetic license, to draw an unspoken parallel between McCarthyism and the attempts by evangelical Christians to punish those who would teach evolution. It is only passingly about academic freedom, though. The real issue at hand was whether or not a majority could penalize someone from holding a belief of which they did not approve. The central issue of the Scopes trial was whether or not the religious beliefs of the majority was sufficient reason to determine what is taught in a science class.

Folks like Mr. Berkin want the rest of us to believe two things. First, that intelligent design is the result of rigorous scientific research; and second, that proponents are being persecuted because their ideas do not agree with the larger scientific community. But neither are true.

The second issue is fairly easily settled. To my knowledge, no one in America has ever lost their job, or been refused promotion, because they believe in some sort of cosmic intelligence that had a hand in designing the universe. There are likely some who have gotten in trouble over teaching that this is somehow a scientific idea, but that's another matter. According to the Pew Foundation's research the vast majority of Americans actually believe in the Christian God. Only about sixteen percent of Americans surveyed profess to be actual atheists. The idea that sixteen percent of the country is somehow persecuting the rest of us who believe in God is simply ludicrous.

To discuss whether or not intelligent design is the result of scientific research, and therefore science, we have to define what we mean by science, and what we mean by religion. Science is the explanation of reality as determined through the use of the scientific method. Religion is the explanation of reality as explained through sacred texts and meditations, which generally rely on super-natural actions and/or beings. Neither definition is perfect, but they'll work for this column.

The scientific method holds that the way to determine reality is to make observations and measurements, analyze the data for patterns, create a hypothesis that explains the pattern, make further predictions based on that hypothesis, then test those predictions to determine if they are untrue. Intelligent design makes a good pass at the first part - it uses observations and measurements, analyzes them for patterns, and creates a hypothesis that explains them. But the hypothesis - that some intelligence guided or shaped the universe as it exists now - doesn't make any sort of prediction. Because it doesn't predict anything, it can't be tested. So it isn't science.

At its best, it is science-like. We generally refer to such endeavors as pseudo-science (which just means "science-like"). That doesn't mean it isn't rigorous - parapsychologists are very rigorous, as are astrologers, and phrenologists. It doesn't even mean that such things are wrong - ghosts may exist, the planets may effect our destiny, and the shape of your head may hold clues to your personality. But when subjected to scientific rigor, these subjects cannot complete the scientific method. Either their predictions are shown to be untrue, or they fail to make predictions that can be tested.

So they aren't taught in science class. But anyone who wants to know more about those subjects can find almost limitless information on them. The debate over para-psychology isn't whether or not it's okay for people to learn about it. It's about whether it should be taught as an example of sound scientific thinking or not. The same is true for intelligent design.

Intelligent design posits that the universe is so complex that it cannot be the result of random, natural processes. It posits that some sort of intelligence guided the design of any number of things. As a hypothesis, it is interesting. But what, pray tell, does it predict?

The only thing it predicts is that there is some sort of intelligence out there that we cannot touch, see, hear, or otherwise access. In other words, it exists outside of the natural world as we know it. It is, by definition, super-natural. That, also by definition, is the realm of religion.

Here's a thought experiment: Take the first chapter of Genesis and replace any mention of God, or any synonym of God, with some other word - "dog" or "tree" or "my wife." Is it any less a religious text? No, of course not. The story is the same - some powerful being created the entire universe simply by saying it should be so. It is the idea of Genesis that is religious, not the particular terminology.

Or consider that some denominations refuse to speak what they believe is the name of God. It doesn't mean that their belief is any less real than those who do so. Because it isn't the name by which they call God that makes their religious beliefs religious. It is the nature of those beliefs. The terminology they use simply signifies their particular denomination.

If I can repeat a bit, intelligent design posits that some sort of intelligence guided the design of any number of things. Does it matter if you call this intelligence "God", "tree", "creator", or "unknown intelligence?" Of course not. It is the nature of the belief that makes it of a religious nature. It might be a Hindu intelligence, a Buddhist intelligence, or a Christian intelligence - or it may be beyond the ability of organized religions to explain. But it is still religious.

So it isn't science. So it doesn't belong in science class.

This, of course, doesn't mean that some people are jerks about it. On ocassion, I have been as well. I don't consult my pastor to discuss biology, and I don't want the biology teacher doing so, either. I want the biology teacher to focus on teaching the body of knowledge known as science. After all, I don't ask the biology teacher about my salvation.

So I'll go along with Mr. Berkin that denying evolution isn't anywhere as heinous as denying the Holocaust. I don't think it is incredibly intelligent to deny evolution and I don't think that evolution and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. But I don't believe that intelligent design, which is ultimately based on religious-type beliefs, should be taught in science class any more than I believe scientific-type beliefs should be preached from the pulpit.

The only "controversy" is in the minds of those who want to cast doubt on a scientific theory that has withstood thousands of scientific tests, but challenges their orthodox religious beliefs. I would refer them to my friend's post on declining church attendance and add that, for religion to be vibrant, it needs to focus on being important to people's lives, not thrust upon them from the pages of a science book. The effort is better spent elsewhere.